tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News July 16, 2017 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
many are marking the occasion with special promotions. that's our fax report this with week. thanks for wat there you go. "fox news sunday" is up next. >> i am chris wallace. new revelations about a meeting between trump family members and russian operatives shape washington. just as the senate gets ready for a make or break vote on health care. >> my son is a wonderful young man. he took a meeting with a russian lawyer. most people would've taken that meeting. >> there is just an air again and disregard for what is ethical. >> comedian affects the potential case against the president with jacek eula, a member of the trump legal team. chris: republicans make changes to their health care bill, but some of the parties say it is
still not enough. >> at camp over at camp over something that doesn't repeal of anna karin doesn't fix it. chris: we will ask senator rand paul, one of the biggest critics of the bill what more needs to be done to finally replace obamacare. plus, senate republicans put off a vote this week as one of their own deals with its own health issue. we will ask our sunday panel what happens if the gop keeps the major congress. hello again for fox news in washington. senate majority leader has put off the health care of vote while senator john mccain recovers from surgery we will have more on the effort to repeal and replace obamacare a little later. first, our top story.
vermont -- for months, donald trump and his team have tried to build links between the election behind us. that is now much tougher with a stream of revelations about a meeting donald trump junior and other campaign officials held with russian operatives last summer expecting to get damaging information about hillary clinton. how does this affect the credibility of the trump white house? what does it mean for at least four investigations into possible collusion. joining me now is jay secula, president of the legal team. since the story first broke about possible links between the trump campaign and russia, the president and his team have repeatedly dismissed this as a hoax in fake news. here are a few examples. >> it's so phony. it goes to show you what the dnc will do. they will lie and do anything to win. >> i have nothing to do with russia.
>> was there in a contact in any way between trump or his associates and the kremlin were cut out they had? >> of course not. why would there be any contacts between the campaign? >> there is no collusion between circling myself and my campaign. i can always speak for myself and russians, zero. >> you now at knowledge that all of those denials are at the very least suspect? >> you got up with demand to context and what took place here. it's important to put the framework here. how did we end up with a special counsel? the former fbi director at the time, james comey had a series of meetings with the president of the united states. in those meetings he took notes, put him on a computer, and when he was terminated from position, which he was acknowledged he had the authority to do, he gave them to a friend of his to make
to the press. conversations he had with the president of the united states. chris: i'm aware of this, but this doesn't have anything to do with my question. whether or not -- >> it has everything. >> you're going to let me in there it. >> i wonder what it's going to take to get there. >> not long. chris, a key link the purpose and he said to get a special account low. so the entire premise upon which the entire investigation is based was based on illegally leaked information and today it's announced that james comey has signed a deal where he will discuss all of this. you tommy, do you think that's okay? chris: i'm not asking you about any of that. >> you said that may let you finish. now let me finish. the question i'm asking is very simple.
the president, his vice president, sun repeatedly denied any contacts with the russian, given what we learned this week about contact between a number of top campaign officials and his son are fake news than a hoax. are the suspect? >> i just answered the question on why the president statements are being clear on what this was involving in his view and i gave you just now the analysis somehow in fact this is discarded. chris: echo if we can. >> let's not go through that again. chris: the question i ask you today is whether or not they denials are suspect. i didn't ask you about james comey. i do not think that another suspect. i do not think denial by the president of the united states is suspect at all. chris: here's the e-mail exchange in june 2016 between don junior setting up a meeting between don junior and the
russians. rheingold being writes the prosecutor of russia met with his father this morning and in their meeting, offer to provide the trump campaign with official documents and information that would incriminate hillary and her dealings with russia and would be very useful to your father. this is obviously very high level sensitive information, but is part of russia and its government support for mr. trump. don junior responds if it's what you say, i love it, especially later in the summer. they contradict the denial of any contacts between the trump campaign than the russians. >> what it states that the meeting -- you said this was a lawyer who was ended at ian rush in. what took place at the meeting, and russian adoptions. it quickly ended in the middle
of the campaign. the idea that it may have involved opposition research, which never materialized, the fact is that the very same time, they were working at the dnc and clinton campaign to get opposition research in his associates. so everybody's acting as if -- chris: what i was going to say, with a meeting about adoption. we would get to that in a moment. the fact of the matter is the reason don junior went into that room in jared kushner went into that room and paul manafort went into that room was not to talk about adoption. it's because they've been promised by rob goldstone that there would he information as part of the russian government's effort to president trump. >> yeah, of course nothing in the meeting that would've taken place about the topic of an opposition research paper is illegal or violation of the law. by the way, i'm not the only lawyer.
most lawyers, the vast majority issue of you and others have those proposed discussions would not have been a violation of the law. >> the point if it does show willingness, perhaps not collusion because apparently none of us know what really went on during the meeting. assuming at least i'm not point everyone is telling the truth. doesn't it show intent and willingness on the part of don junior and garrett and paul manafort to collude with the russians? when they play now, it was not just some russia not the street. she had close ties to the people in the kremlin. >> number one, the discussion if it was going to be about russian opposition research that the lawyer had, the fact is, you know that goes on in campaigns all the time. >> it doesn't go on with russians all the time, jay.
>> a look, here's what happened. nothing happened and there's no exchange of information. and in a bad self, the relevancy of the differential whether it was a russian lawyer or whether individuals they knew, in fact is what to place during that meeting come even on the basis that the e-mail says donald trump laid them out would not violations of the statute. when you talked about russian collusion, colluding to do what? chris: well, let's talk about the legality of the meeting. the u.s. code bars a former national from giving money or quote, seeing the value in connection with the election ended bars anyone from soliciting such assistance. was the trump campaign and according to that meeting, talking about what happened when they went into that meeting, was not soliciting something of value, which was the kremlin as they believed it, the kremlin
effort to take the election to donald trump? >> number one, they didn't solicit the meeting. >> they agree to and in fact donald trump said i love it and he agreed to the meeting on the 25th floor of trump tower. >> if you would've materialized is not a thing of value. there's never a case that opposition research as a thing of value. i've talked about that as well. i think chris, i don't think it's appropriate to inflate. the exact transaction as it was laid out in the e-mail was not a solicitation by the trump campaign to get information. it was opposition research. compared to doubt what to place with ukrainians in the dnc working in conclusion with each other or when they were linking to one of the other networks are the question they were going to last during the debate. everyone is acting as if there is this massive collusion statute that only applies here.
>> there a couple of points and one is ceasing to be fighting over the fact that this wasn't cnn is giving questions to hillary clinton. this was according to the offer that was made by rod gold tone. christopher wray, the president's own fbi director nominee saw it this way. take a look. >> to the members of this committee, any threat or effort to interfere with our elections from any nationstate for a nonstate terror is the kind of thing the fbi would want to know. chris: he is not saying any actual interference. he is saying any offer is something the fbi would want to know. would you agree that donald junior and garrett and paul manafort should've notified the fbi? >> lists what chris bridges said. he would investigate any type of
involvement of interference. they have said precisely the same thing. on multiple occasions you can go back and check the record on this. the president said to james comey, satellites were doing something, here what you have. to place between what we know to base was not a violation of the law. there's not a violation of the law. the question is russia's other engagement on a global scale is directed to the united states is being investigated. the president has asked vladimir putin himself about that, talk to them about that when they were just at the g20. the idea that it's somehow inconsistent with what the president said is a false narrative. it's not true. >> you began this interview by going after james comey for leaking information, for writing a book. in our last interview last month, you are sharply critical
and i want to place them about for you. >> i can't discuss that and would not discuss that with you. unlike james comey who leaks information i actually respect the privilege. apparently he did not. >> you said that a couple times in the interview. what attorney-client privilege exists between the president and the fbi director? >> the presidential executive privilege, so there's two privileges. >> you would agree there is no attorney-client? >> james comey -- >> you doesn't work is the personal attorney. >> beheld it. >> chris, i want to be clear. no one denies there is a privilege that existed between the president of the united states and james comey without the white house or the president released information covered by that privilege.
that's illegal. chris: when you suggested james comey violated attorney client privilege that misunderstands the role of the fbi are. not the fbi's private lawyer. >> chris, i have the attorney client privilege. unlike james comey, i respected as james comey should have respected the privilege that he waived which he had no authority to do in order to get that. >> one final question. he got fired by the president. >> do you think it is okay in the book deal according to the report that he's going to go into details? do you think that's good? >> i asked the questions. you enter them, jay. either one answer that one. >> at me ask you one final question.
who is paying you and all of the outside lawyers? >> so i am retained by the main law firm that is involved in the representation of the president and that is retained as counsel. our ability that i would do for this kind of case goes to his firm and they pay us. >> yes, whose pay and not. who's paying them? >> that situation is from mr. castor with firm and his ever paying them. we are sub paid by the council. i'm not in privity of contract as we say in the law but the person in pain the organization paying the bills for the firm. >> do you know if president trump for the private legal defense? the reason i ask is there is talk the campaign committee is paying in an effort to have the
rnc pay. that's an issue. >> none of those would be illegal or outside of the norm. that happens. i don't know. >> i'm not in per the contract as they say what the party responsible for the actual payment of the bill. >> i think it went better than last time. we are going to keep trying to get this. >> i don't mind a good joust. even early in the morning. chris: thank you for your time. >> appreciated. chris: up next, we'll bring in our sunday group whether it is more fake news for the first hard evidence.
>> are more than happy to be transparent about it and cooperate with everyone. this is everything. chris: donald trump junior telling sean hannity he had disclosed the full story about three days before we learned there is someone else in the room with links to soviet intelligence. time now for a sunday group fox news senior political analyst brit hume. ezekiel emanuel, one of the architects of obama cared and author of the new boat for the future. washington bureau chief for "the associated press" and the head heritage action for america, how badly does the white house officials in the white house then called the revelation before that don junior meeting, how badly has a damaged their effort to sideline this whole thing is fake news?
>> i think this does a lot of damage. when you talk to white house officials after the first couple of revelations, they knew this was more serious. they knew this was harder to talk their way out of for a couple reasons. one, the president's son. two, actual e-mails that say in black and white it this was part of a russian government to help tron. the presidentsigned release those e-mails himself. it was an anonymous source is that good hit on the intelligence agencies and i do think the overall strategy from the white house and will try to say that even though this media is there, to continue to deny there's any reason for any committees in the more investigation to continue. chris: i have an understanding that there's a lot of disarray.
legal teams, particularly for don junior and the legal team for jared as to how to handle this. they can coordinate because if they do and talk to the outside layer, they'll end up being called to testify before the committee and i also understand that there is growing concern about the dual role of jared and ivanka. other top officials, family, i'd infinitely injure its case subject to an investigation. this becomes very, very hard. >> this is complicated internally because you have people they are all working and they all have their legal team. if your client despite the fact married to the president's daughter. he's going to have a legal team
focused on his interest. a lot of people in the white house think the legal team has been not doing the service. >> here is how president trump defended the meeting this week. >> it's called opposition researcher and research into your opponent. i've only been in politics for two years, but i've had many people call and say we have information on this factor for this person. that's very standard in politics. chris: does that explanation fly in as a veteran, a lot of washington scandals, how damaging do you think they were? >> in one particular sense it means there's no end in sight for this firestorm. and once you have, as julie was explaining, all these people getting lawyers and preparing to testify and all the rest of it.
the burden on the white house is enormous. it was already a burden on the white house to fight these allegations, whether they have the political consequence of this, which is very serious because it means this is the atmosphere in which this administration in this white house is going to have to operate going forward. and then it begins to matter about how well staffed the white house is in white house is in the administration is in rest of it. in the administration, the white house can become paralyzed by this thing and that among other things and the explanation the president isn't sufficient. chris: it's worth noting this in the first time they try to influence elections. because back to the 1960s would have multiple cases where they try to influence kennedy versus nixon, al gore versus bush. every time they've approached some other candidate, they've turned it over to the fbi. so the notion they said this is
opposition resource, it's not true. people have standards that are rules of engagement and getting a foreign government to give you information is something the american political system has not permitted. that notion is wrong. chris: let me just pick up on that one point. i think it's fair to say you've been generally supportive of president. doesn't this set of e-mails and hearing the people in the meeting, don junior, jared kushner, campaign chairman paul manafort and the russian lawyer, doesn't the e-mail exchange on the fact that those three trump officials showed up at a meeting show at the same intent of willingness to collude. >> there is a willingness to accept opposition research from a foreign agent and that is something that should be concerned. it's interesting i agree that ted kennedy in 1983 tried to
work with the russians and ronald reagan. anybody working with the research. that's what it shows. that's why all americans are recognizing the hostel for not there at the investigation in the country deserves to see what comes out of the investigation. they need to go on and they are look forward to the results. >> i'm not going to play dr. emanuel. i'm going to call you see. we are going to talk in specifics. are you willing to see the country paralyzed for the next year? if more information comes out to see the president, how far do we need to go on this? >> democracy is at stake in
america. i've been our biggest economy, russia trying to meddle in change our election. that is the bedrock of democracy. that is the most important thing. i do not want to see this country paralyzed, but i do not want to see democracy undermined by having the president of the united states colluding. remember, when people go into government, they have to abide by the laws here. one of the law says you can't get anything of value, whether anything of value from a foreign country. it's the opposition research is true. if the value. chris: i was going to say you heard what jay sekulow had to say to that. >> is grandstanding. we should look out what happens in the investigation plays out and have a discussion right now. the emotion i was just displayed was nice, but it's grandstanding until those effects come. chris: democracy is a very
fragile thing. turkey is a very good example about how someone can win an election and totally undermine democracy by taking on judicial independence, the press and free elections. >> grandstanding has gone on before. your 15 seconds. >> american democracy has survived this and we don't know whether it had any real noticeable impact on the election. overwrought that our democracy is in peril because of all of this is a little premature. >> we have to take a break here. we'll see you a little later next. senate republicans on a crucial vote of health care, but does bill do enough to repeal and replace obamacare? one of the plans biggest critics
chris: a look out about way at trump national golf club in new jersey where the world's top female golfers are competing in today's final round of the u.s. women's open. last night, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell put off consideration of health care legislation this week after it was announced that senator john mccain had surgery to remove a blood clot from above his left eye. republicans are struggling to pass a revised bill which some say still doesn't go far enough to repeal and replace obamacare. joining me now, one of the biggest critics, senator rand paul. let's start with the bottom line.
whenever it comes up, whenever senator mccain is in good health and comes back, does senate majority leader mitch mcconnell had the votes to pass the revised bill? >> i don't think right now he does. the real problem we have is we won four elections on repealing obamacare. but this still keeps most of the obamacare taxes, most of the regulations, subsidies and create something republicans have never had a giant insurance bailout superfund. that is not a republican idea to give money to an inventory that makes $15 million in profit. >> so with this bill does not pass, what happens? >> you know what i suggested to the president cannot talk to the president again just this last weekend or i guess on friday. i told him i think we can still, if this comes to an impasse, if the president jumped into the fray and says look, guys coming
up promise to repeal, let's repeal what we can agree to and continue to fix, replace whatever has to happen afterward. we should try to repeal as many taxes and regulations in as many of the mandates as they possibly can. i still think the entire 52 of us could get together on a more narrow claim repeal and i think it still can be done. >> this is a change of heart. in january, you said you had told the president you needed to repeal and replace at the same time. >> it's interesting that it's not. i'm still for replace. did big government republicans. maybe a always was replaced with freedom. legalize choice, insurance, allow people to join associations to buy their insurance. i think those that could be part of the repeals. most unwitting people join
groups, letting them join the large group like the chamber of commerce, those are welcomed by republicans. that passed in the house of republicans unanimously. chris: here is the president trump said in his weekly address this weekend about the merits of the current new revised bill. >> the senate health care bills tops the obamacare bill disaster. expands choice and drives down costs. >> is the president wrong, senator? >> i would caution about overselling. i've been involved of health care for 2020 years in the position. he was in terrible shape before obamacare about worse. they will remain with the republican plan. the fundamental flaw is that mandates on insurance costs in young healthy people say they
get sicker and sicker. the republican admits they will dump billions of dollars in and say please charge less and try to counteract the death spiral, but the republicans that obamacare. chris: i understand. they will not fix the problem so that. here is why conservatives say it is still worth supporting. it is they contend the most significant medicaid reform after. it turns an open-ended entitlement into a lot grand for states compared to current law cuts medicaid spending $772 billion by 2026. are you willing, senator, to see all that go down the drain? >> some of the medicaid reform
slowing down the rate of growth is what they do. these lowdown the rate of growth until you're seven, eight, nine, 10. i've seen the way things work in washington. we do these 10 year plans. the kind of remind me of the soviet agricultural plants, we do the things in the first two, three, four, five years and by the time we get to seven, eight, nine there's a new congress. but while medicaid reform goes out the window. the bottom line is i'm not willing to trade reform for an insurance company bailout entitlement. they called a temporary stabilization of nearly $200 billion. the deaths by earl of obamacare will remain with the republican plan. >> you say given the balance of power and the way the votes are
lining up to you would like to see a strike repeal at this point and then try to fix it later. the republican colleagues are not 51 votes for its great repeal and if you do that and then you try to fix it later. because they need 60 votes. you have to work with democrats and stuff is even more liberal. >> there is a way we can do it. we can also at the same time that has the big ticket spending items that conservatives object to. there are many bills. there's a chance we could take the things i object to on the repeal bill that are big government spending, but i'm in a bill that democrats typically vote for. one is called s. chip. a reaffirmation of medicaid for children. it will be a big spending bill
that they want to spend billions on building up the insurance company, they can do it that what democrats because they will vote for conservatives in insurance bailout. we would have a spending bill. it will be advanced simultaneously on the same day. moderates will get more debt for the country in the claim repeal, which is the only thing we promised in the election over and over again in the noise the republicans are going back on their repeal obamacare. >> there is a number of ideas like the senate republicans may be dead thoughts on what can be done. first of all, ted cruz has gotten a measure put into the bill that says insurers can put out skinnier, cheaper plans, fewer benefits for helping people as long as they put out at least one plan that has all of the health benefits required
by obamacare. what's wrong with that? >> former choice. i've been supportive of the cruise amendment. they will still be the fundamental flaw of obamacare for all these mandates. adverse selection will continue at the cruise amendment. some argue it will be made worse. cruise himself said we will have to increase government subsidies to insurance companies to stabilize prices. it's not a very republican idea to have taxpayer money going to a private industry. insurance businesses or $15 million year. i'm generally for the i.d. of the amendment because it gives more freedom, but it's in the context of the bill at the fundamental flaw still retaining the death spiral and obamacare. ultimately it won't work. people -- republicans don't understand this. when they passed this, they will completely on health care and people of unhappy with health care because of the enlarged sort of bullying way of
insurance companies denying everything. my family alone, we fight tooth and nail. unlike the rest of america and were frustrated with insurance companies charging us through the roof for not paying us went to the doctor. >> the idea of the lightning rod in quick answer. let me ask you one other quick one, which was the senator cassidy and grand are now saying go the federalism route and let each side to state what they want. here's what it is. it's is. >> will take the $500 billion into some kind of formula, give it to the dates and say the following. if you want to repair upon the care, you can repair it. >> briefly, what is wrong with that? >> the problem is obamacare was a trillion dollars tax increase. if you tell me it's federalism to increase taxes by billion dollars in washington and send
them back to the states, that's not really federalism. federalism would be devolving would be devolving the power and size and scope to the states. i don't know exactly what it is as far as what we'll do with the regulations. as a wipeout regulations of obamacare in what happens to the regulation? chris: let me ask you one last question. i've got 30 seconds as some of your colleagues say if this goes down, you are going to end up with obamacare because this is it. it's either this or obamacare. you'd rather keep obamacare? >> i think the current system is terrible. the death spiral of obamacare is unwinding the whole system. it will continue to unwind. i don't think republican should keep their name on it and then we will be blamed for the rest of the unwinding. it is not going to fix the problem. chris: senator paul, thank you for joining us. watch what happens on the hill when it finally does come. always a pleasure to talk with
relevant merits of the current system versus the revised senate bill. >> we are very, very close to ending this healthcare and nightmare. we are so close. the legislation working its way through congress provides that the choice and control people want. the affordability they need, and the quality they deserve in healthcare. >> see, want to get you into a debate with your policy counterpart here. i'm going to let you go first. is the president wrong when it comes to the question of obama care versus the current senate bill.
why is obama care better? >> the current senate bill will throw 22 mill people off of insurance. >> we don't know that. >> look, it is going to throw at least over 15 million, because that is the medicaid part. it will throw 22 million people off of insurance. second, it undermines the insurance marketplace with the cruise amendment. it makes the bill worse because the adverse selection rand paul was talking about will be even worse. >> healthy people can buy cheap plans, see people have to go to the full one. >> it undermines the freedom of cancer patients i take care because they will not be able to afford health insurance given the cruise proposal. >> what about the subsidies? >> everyone know they are inefficiently distributed and not enough. the third thing i would make is $45 billion for opiate court and tricare over ten years may sell micah a lot of money but the presidential commission says they need over 220 billion. it is 20%.
high undershirts and you -- under insurance. >> we got this on facebook. the revised senate bill from our call who writes repeal the aca affordable care act as promise. do not fix. what is wrong with the free market and patient choice just like we have an auto insurance? how do you answer mark and seek on these questions on whether the revised bill is better or worse than the current system? >> mark is right. when you talk to people in the senate only 15 or 20 votes in the center for full repeal. for seven years they promised will repeal, we need to move towards a patient centered free market. the republican party was not serious about repeal. that's a tragedy. >> so should we leave it in place? >> this bill is the first step in the process.
zeke is wrong because he's doing what people in washington, d.c. does play baseline games people would be on the individual mandate is only ten they assume that magically it would go from 10 million people from the individual market up to 69 people before they even do some scoring. >> the medicaid expansion is real. taking $800 billion out of medicaid is not going to expand the number of people who are covered. the second point is there is no freedom in this bill for people who have pre-existing conditions. this removes the promise to them that if you have a pre-existing condition you can have affordable insurance. >> the problem is the bill actually keeps not all but what was created to help a be pouting
people rather than more vulnerable populations like the disabled. actually keeps the federal subsidy for the medicaid expansion. seeks not been entirely fair on that point. >> remember obama care this coverage for previous existing conditions which defeats the idea of insurance. for example the automobile insurance market to have the repairs covered. >> let me finish. the idea of insurance is that you purchase it to guard against risks and things that make her in the future. not that you purchase the coverage after you are already sick. once that id is gone, obama care is essential that it remains. >> if i have cancer through no fault of my own, do not had a
car, i need to have insurance to cover me. this bill does nothing, it only makes the price of their insurance ever higher. cancer patients and patients with multiple sclerosis, alzheimer's disease are written out of coverage. >> we are not to settle this and don't have to because will have more time to talk about it.
>> remember when president trumd whether he would give up twitter. as we told you in february that was never a question for the president and one trusted aide. here's our power player of the week. >> directly reaching out to about recall the trump train out there. the movement and delivering our message directly to the american people. >> sam is it describing his job
as white house structure social media. getting donald trump's message out on filter by the press or anyone else when the president took office there's some question whether he would keep tweeting. >> let me ask you, should i keep the twitter going or not? [applause] >> why not? mr. trump now has 113 random followers on eight different white house and personal platforms. >> how important is that, that it is his authentic voice reaching directly to his supporters? >> it's import. it's his speaking. >> he spends and stayed near the president. >> he will start speaking a tweet which i know is a tweet and then we will send it out. he has been called the hemingway of twitter many times. with a hundred 40 characters there's many times he'll given me a message for traveling or in the office and it stops at 139 characters.
>> that is during working hours. then the tweets that the president types himself early in the morning or late at night. >> i get a little bang as we like to say. and i get the tweet. i will take it and amplify it on to instagram as well as his facebook account. >> this is a trump facebook page filled with announcements, presidential musings and behind the scenes video that he takes. >> as he's dictating a tweet, have you ever said to him, maybe not. >> there have been times but not too often. i've always believed in being with the man from day one is, let trump he trump. >> did anybody ever hear that? he has become quite famous and social media. >> skipping a was a celebrity on the campaign trail but he goes back.
they met when he was 16 working at country club in suburban, new york. >> i would either caddy your clean his clubs upon departure the golf course. he said to me, you're going to work for me wonder. >> he ended up running a trump golf course but was about to start his own social media business when he heard the boss might will run for president. >> chris: d everything to yourself, a 16-year-old caddy, assistant to the president? >> it's overwhelming, surreal, but we are here and here to serve the american people. >> now he spends more time around donald trump than any member of his staff. in a relationship that is close to family. >> he knows that i'm there for him and i have is back. everything we've been through, nobody is taking more than donald trump. and to be with him in the foxhole and being here the white house when everybody said you have zero chance, what are you doing. >> like it.
>> chris: like his boss, he takes to the twitter account to defend the administration. he got a warning for violated the hatch act when he urge trump supporters to vote howie: on "buzzfeed," the media are ablaze over reports that the president's son net with a russian lawyer who said she had opposition research on hillary clinton. >> it shows a willingness to collude with a russian adversary. >> this interview is an attempt to defend the indefensible. don, jr. is the latest person in president's orbit to mislead you. >> if there is nothing there and